Great News! Donations to support mushroomobserver.org can now be made on a tax-deductible basis!Mushroom Observer, Inc., has been recognized as a section 501(c)(3) public charity serving educational purposes. Your donations will help us maintain free online access to all the mycological observations already recorded, and to continue to improve the platform to make the collected information even more useful.Donate Today!

Notes: cap 4.5 cm convex shaped.Dark brown with striation, With bright yellow scales. Scales easily falling off and remnants of scales can be seen on the ground under cap. Gills close white. Stem 3 cm smooth white. base slight swollen and appears to have a collar.
Found growing solitary in mixed woods Oak Beech Hickory and Hemlock in the area. Growing in compact soil.

Comments

problems a gatekeeper would really be doing. What would be the mission? What would be the problem set that the gatekeeper was supposed to avoid? This site has done pretty well with the only “gatekeeper” being the functionality of the software that has been so generously created, maintained, and extended.

Let’s suppose that RET is busily continuing with his number codes and posts dozens of them on the web. One would hope that people would not use similar codes for amanitas. There would not be any harm in “Amanita sp-myoldsock” other than the group memory forgetting where it came from, who originated it(?), and what it meant. If such a name is created on MO, it would be good if the definition of the name with illustration was on MO or on a well-maintained site that had every hope of existing in the long term. I don’t have any names of the form sp-ZAMBIA05. However, that kind of numbering is completely consistent with syntax and semantics behind by number codes. I could imagine that we might need to have an informal authorship so that we know who’s responsible for a temporary code [“cryptonomen temporarium” :-) or “cryptonom. temp.”] We already have nom. prov. and we don’t have to “police” that. People aren’t going wild with joke names that are “nom. prov.”, for example.

Maybe we could ask for the sp- name possibility require authorship the same informal way we do it now. Ask that the suffix “cryptonom. temp.” or “temp. code” be allowed in the same manner as “nom. prov.” And trust that folks would do the sensible thing and encourage others to do the same. This is pretty much (friendly persuasion) the way we operate now with name problems (misspelling, wrong author, etc.).

Maybe the idea of a gatekeeper is going to far. Many of us “gatekeep” as part of our participation on MO.

I think that your idea would be very useful – I also have ‘number names’ for campus Entolomas.
I think that you are right that someone would absolutely have to volunteer as a gatekeeper, and that would get very touchy, and it seems like it would require an enormous investment of time to verify that the user is actually describing and maintaining their number names.

I started with plain numbers such as “species 10” or “species 32”; then I realized that I had to break up the world into regions so that I wouldn’t be swamped by numbers going up into the hundreds. I then added an “N” for “northeastern North America,” and an “M” for “Mexico,” a “T” for “Texas and US Gulf Coast,” a “C” for “California,” etc. There are 30 years of these codes, they’re used at forays instead of names. People see them in foray checklists and foray reports. So I really don’t feel that it is good for communications to alter the codes. I don’t think it is a good long run solution to use “species-Meleven” for “sp-M11”. Or “species-Teight” for “sp-T08” or “species-CReight” for “sp-CR8” (Costa Rican species 8) or “-Tone” or “-CRone” or “-Mone” or…. The potential for semantic confusions due to homonymy seems significant. I’d like to ask for a software change that would permit “sp-” followed by any string without white space as a temporary code name. I maintain my code names. People would have to resist the temptation to create code names that they didn’t maintain. The nice thing is that the idea is extensible to any MO user who sets up his/her own scheme of coding. The negative side is that someone might have to volunteer as a gate person to decide which users get the privilege if the management decides this has too high a potential for chaos if the door were opened for everyone.

but “sp-10” was not acceptable as a species name. It would be nice if my upcoming site revision and expansion could have its “cryptonomen temporarium” (code names) used on MO as well. Can the boss man give us a comment on that? :-) I have hundreds of these codes of which dozens are likely to come up on MO and serve a good temporary purpose.

The bulb looks like the bulb of Amanita flavoconia rather than that of A. brunnescens. This separates two yellow-volvaed species of section Validae that have brown virgate caps. At the highest magnification the cap in the closest close-up is developing a radially “streaky” appearance; so my guess is that it will be noticeably virgate when it is mature. I don’t have a name for this species yet, but I’ve known it for years. I first saw it under planted oaks and conifers on the grounds of the Graduate College at Princeton University in the early 1980s. It’s not very common and I’ve not seen it very often at the forays that I have attended. I know from past observation that it is susceptible to (what I take is) Hypomyces hyalinus infection. When my new website is up, there will be a page for it with at least some technical detail (I was working on it yesterday).